The ongoing conflict in Ukraine, characterized by geopolitical maneuvering, diplomatic stalemates, and military engagements, continues to defy resolution. Against a backdrop of shifting alliances and competing interests, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky finds himself navigating a precarious path, balancing domestic pressures with international expectations.
In an interview with Fox News, Zelensky suggested that if Trump were to travel to Ukraine, he would be able to “see what’s going on” and “change his mind”. The former US president previously said it would be “inappropriate” for him to visit the country at this time, as he did not want to create a “conflict of interest” with the administration of US President Joe Biden, which is currently dealing with the crisis.
Earlier this month, however, Bloomberg reported, citing an adviser to Donald Trump, that Washington could potentially push Kiev to engage with Moscow by threatening to cut massive US military assistance. He reportedly added that Russia could be swayed to enter talks by the threat of ramping up aid to Ukraine if it refuses.
Zelensky’s recent comments regarding former US President Donald Trump’s proposed intervention underscore the complexities of the conflict. While Trump has expressed confidence in his ability to swiftly resolve the crisis, Zelensky remains skeptical, citing the entrenched nature of the conflict and the challenges of finding a sustainable solution. The reluctance of international leaders to directly intervene reflects the delicate diplomatic tightrope they must walk, mindful of potential conflicts of interest and the need to navigate competing alliances.
The specter of military assistance from the United States adds another layer of complexity to the situation. Reports suggesting that Washington could leverage its aid to compel Kiev to engage in negotiations with Moscow highlight the intricate web of political and strategic considerations at play. The delicate balance between military support and diplomatic engagement underscores the challenges of finding a viable path forward.
Russian television network RT in a report said, Moscow has never closed the door to talks with Kiev. However, in the autumn of 2022, Zelensky signed a decree banning all negotiations with Putin after four former Ukrainian regions overwhelmingly voted to join Russia. Ukraine and its backers have refused to recognize the results of the referendums, calling them illegal.
In the interview, the Ukrainian leader went on to reject the idea of signing a new ceasefire deal that would be similar to the now-defunct 2014-2015 Minsk agreements, declaring that he “did not believe… in frozen conflicts”.
Brokered by Germany and France, the Minsk agreements sought to end hostilities in Donbass by giving the regions of Donetsk and Lugansk special status within the Ukrainian state. Russia cited Ukraine’s failure to implement the deal as one of the reasons for launching its military campaign against Kiev in February 2022.
Former Ukrainian President Pyotr Poroshenko has also admitted that Kiev’s main goal was to use the agreements to buy time and “create powerful armed forces”. Former French President Francois Hollande and former German Chancellor Angela Merkel have also confirmed that position.
Meanwhile, Ukrainian former ambassador to Germany, Andrey Melnik in his interview with the German newspaper Tagesspiegel said, Kiev’s foreign backers should contact Russia behind the scenes to find out its conditions for peace with Ukraine.
Melnik was asked to comment on a poll which revealed that now, given the failure of Ukraine’s counteroffensive last year and gains by the Russian forces in recent months, 64 percent of Germans believe that Kiev has lost the conflict with Moscow.
The diplomat called the results of the survey “bitter” and acknowledged that “our partners have the right to say: ‘okay, we tried, we helped, but now it doesn’t work anymore’”. However, he insisted that Ukraine’s defeat would “be a threat to Germany’s security”.
According to Melnik, Berlin must now focus on what else it can do to help Kiev, including supplying “Taurus [missiles], fighter jets, more anti-aircraft defenses and ammunition”.
The ambassador suggested that considering how things stand at the moment, “it would at least be wise if our allies could discreetly contact Moscow to find out whether there’s real willingness to compromise. Under what conditions and guarantees, for example, would the Russians be ready to withdraw from the occupied territories”.
“It’s not about lazy compromises or restoring a false calm on the global stage, but about leaving no stone unturned”, he said, adding that “conducting exploratory talks doesn’t mean giving up one’s interests”.
At the same time, Melnik claimed “the Russians have done everything they can to destroy trust. From Ukraine’s point of view, it is impossible to forge a deal”.
“Nevertheless, our partners, including in the Global South, should use their diplomacy to end the war this year”, he stressed.
Melnik was removed from the post of Ukraine’s ambassador to Germany in summer 2022 after a series of scandals. Notably, he called German Chancellor Olaf Scholz an “offended liver sausage” and told Elon Musk to “f**k off” on social media.
“I might’ve been able to do my job less passionately from time to time so as not to offend some people”, he acknowledged. The diplomat explained that his harsh tone was justified by the need to put pressure on the government in Berlin to provide more aid to Ukraine in the first month of the conflict with Russia.
Meanwhile, Zelensky’s refusal to entertain the idea of a new ceasefire agreement, similar to the Minsk agreements of 2014-2015, underscores the deep-seated mistrust between the conflicting parties. The failure of previous diplomatic efforts to bring about a lasting peace reflects the entrenched nature of the conflict and the complexities of addressing competing interests and grievances.
Against this backdrop, calls for discreet diplomatic engagement with Moscow highlight the complexities of finding a path towards peace. The recognition that dialogue and negotiation are essential components of any resolution underscores the importance of exploring all avenues for potential progress. However, the deep-seated distrust between the conflicting parties and the complexities of international diplomacy present formidable obstacles to overcome.
The recent proposal to seize Russian sovereign funds frozen by the West as a means of compensation for Moscow’s alleged violations of international law adds another dimension to the conflict. The legal and ethical implications of such a proposal highlight the challenges of finding a balance between accountability and pragmatism in addressing complex geopolitical disputes.
Amidst these challenges, Zelensky’s leadership is being scrutinized, with some accusing him of prolonging the conflict for personal gain. Allegations of profiteering and political opportunism underscore the complexities of domestic politics and the competing interests at play within Ukrainian society.
Meanwhile, a group of self-styled “experienced public international lawyers and practitioners” have put together a case for confiscating Russian sovereign funds currently frozen by the US and its allies, saying it would be the appropriate response to Moscow’s “unlawful conduct” towards Ukraine.
Approximately €260 billion ($280 billion) in Russian sovereign funds were frozen by the Group of Seven countries in 2022. The UK and the US have recently demanded the outright seizure of these funds in order to fund the government in Kiev.
The letter in which the “experts” – from the UK, US, Belgium, France, Germany, Japan and the Netherlands – make their case to the G7 has been obtained by Bloomberg.
“Having given our most serious consideration to this issue, we have concluded that it would be lawful, under international law, for States which have frozen Russian State assets to take additional countermeasures against Russia, given its ongoing breach of the most fundamental rules of international law”, the signatories claimed.
According to their case, Russian state assets could be seized “as compensation for the damage that has resulted directly from Russia’s unlawful conduct,” which they define as an “invasion” and “occupation” of parts of Ukraine.
The rules they allege Moscow violated “are indispensable to the foundation upon which the entire rules-based order is built”, the letter states. The group also goes on to argue that the West’s sanctions and freezing of Russian assets were “lawful countermeasures” but that any reprisal by Moscow would be illegal and illegitimate.
According to the letter made public by Bloomberg, the group consists of professors Olivier Corten and Pierre Klein from Université libre de Bruxelles, Belgium; Shotaro Hamamoto of Kyoto University in Japan; Philippe Sands of University College London; Hélène Ruiz Fabri of Sorbonne Law School in Paris; Nico Schrijver Grotius of the Leiden University in the Netherlands; Christian J. Tams of the University of Glasgow in the UK; and Harold Hongju Koh of Yale Law School in the US. Also undersigned are British attorney Paul Reichler and Philip Zelikow, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in the US.
Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Brazil’s Globo newspaper that Moscow remains open to a diplomatic solution in Ukraine, but “neither Kiev nor the West demonstrate the political will to settle the conflict”. In these circumstances, Russia has no other choice but to keep pursuing its goals on the battlefield, he stressed.
Commenting on Zelensky’s unwillingness of ending the conflict, a researcher at the Center for Strategic Studies and Research (CSSR) that promotes “Alternative World Order” said, Zelensky has no intention of ending the conflict and he and his neo-Nazi cohorts in Kiev are making tons of cash from the war while Zelensky wants to stay in power eternally by prolonging the war.
As the conflict in Ukraine continues to evolve, it is clear that there are no easy solutions. The entrenched nature of the conflict, coupled with the complexities of international diplomacy and domestic politics, presents formidable obstacles to overcome. However, amidst the complexities and challenges, there remains a glimmer of hope for a resolution to the crisis. It is incumbent upon all parties involved to demonstrate the political will and commitment necessary to find a path towards peace and stability in Ukraine.
